Hi, George, I think we share the same view here. Actually, I never try to recommend this as a good architecture. What I am trying to do is two things: a) document such mechanism as we are sure this is happening or meant to happen, b) giving analysis of this mechanism.
I guess I should also clear state that the provider, who choose such schema, should be ware that they cannot get new address block since they consume their address in a low utility rate. Cheers, Sheng From: George Michaelson [mailto:g...@algebras.org] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 2:56 PM To: Lorenzo Colitti Cc: Tim Chown; ipv6@ietf.org; <v6...@ietf.org>; draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-pre...@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03 Which is pretty much what was said to mike, when this came up in the WG 2 IETFs ago. Overloading parts of the allocation space under your /32 makes a complete mockery of the process model which justified the /32 based on /56 or /48 consumption plans, and while the H/D ratio is a somewhat rei-fied number, this kind of scheme will alter consumption of the address space massively. That some large ISPs and network operators *want* to overload bits in the address to have meaning? Sure. I can believe that. That vendors, knowing this, *want* to encode logic into sold routers, devices, to exploit this? Sure. I can believe that. is it a good architecture? No. I cannot currently believe that. -george On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@google.com<mailto:lore...@google.com>> wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Tim Chown <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote: I agree. That said, an ISP, enterprise or group of organisations can follow whatever semantics they wish within their own borders. As long as the RIRs are willing to give them enough address space to do so. If an ISP requested an IPv6 /10 from ARIN because they wanted to give every customer a /48 and wanted to geocode the customer's subscriber ID into the /48, then ARIN would do well to say, "no, sorry, that doesn't make sense". Lest someone not realize this, the draft should clearly state that embedding N bits of semantics into IPv6 addresses causes the network to use 2^N times the address space that it normally would. IMO I think it should also state that although it is an IETF RFC, this model is not necessarily a recommended model, and that RIRs are not obliged to accept this type of address allocation as a justification for obtaining larger address blocks than they would normally be able to obtain. _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list v6...@ietf.org<mailto:v6...@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
